You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Judging quality of current septic shock definitions and criteria
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-1164-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Manu Shankar-Hari, Guido Bertolini, Frank M. Brunkhorst, Rinaldo Bellomo, Djillali Annane, Clifford S. Deutschman, Mervyn Singer |
| Abstract |
Septic shock definitions are being revisited. We assess the feasibility, reliability, and validity characteristics of the current definitions and criteria of septic shock. Septic shock is conceptualised as cardiovascular dysfunction, tissue perfusion and cellular abnormalities caused by infection. Currently, for feasibility, septic shock is identified at the bedside by using either hypotension or a proxy for tissue perfusion/cellular abnormalities (e.g., hyperlactatemia). We propose that concurrent presence of cardiovascular dysfunction and perfusion/cellular abnormalities could improve validity of septic shock diagnosis, as we are more likely to identify a patient population with all elements of the illness concept. This epidemiological refinement should not affect clinical care and may aid study design to identify illness-specific biomarkers and interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 16 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 11% |
| Australia | 5 | 7% |
| Spain | 3 | 4% |
| Italy | 2 | 3% |
| Greece | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 22 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 41 | 59% |
| Scientists | 14 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 26% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 59% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2019.
All research outputs
#846,221
of 25,670,640 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#631
of 6,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,995
of 397,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#33
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,670,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.